Both articles state the same thing: the cores that came out of the first few tape-outs only yielded ~500 mhz, which clearly wasn't enough to compete with the GTX, so instead of tossing them out they just used them for the first batch of XL's, meaning they likely can't O/C to XT. I don't understand what part of linking an article is considered FUD spreading M0RPH...once again, just because you don't like what's being said, doesn't make it any less valid of a point.
You're misreading the Beyond3D quote I posted. In fact I am betting the Inquirer misread their article as well, and that's how they invented this little news item of theirs. If you read the B3D quote carefully, what they are saying is that only wafers that had not had the metal layers applied yet were used. These wafers received new metal layers which did not have the defect in question. In fact I might just go over to B3D and ask Dave to clarify this just so folks like you won't go around spreading nasty rumors & misinformation.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
would be cool if shappire comes out with some X1000 series card that can be moddable/overclocking beast at $250 like they did with X800GTO
instead of that, i was thinking that it might be possible to mod these first/second tapeout (if true) to like 20 pipes or something since the original R520 was planned for 32 pipes...
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Shimmering... it isnt an issue faced by many people, because the issue was later knowned that it happen by chance, on certain games and its different across different systems. Many dont see the shimmering, but for the ones who do, it was fixed in the 78.03 (78.05?) driver i think it was.
People seriously overplay the shimmering issue.
Anyway back to inform you that the IQ is almost a tie.
Xbitlabs:
[/quote] AF:
I have to draw your attention to the fact that we haven?t found any real evidence pointing at the significant advantage of the enhanced AF mode over the standard AF mode. In other words, there is no big difference in the image quality of real games between the enhanced anisotropic filtering mode of the new RADEON X1800 XT and the standard anisotropic filtering of the new ATI solutions as well as of the other graphics cards.
AA:
As we can see from the screenshots, adaptive anti-aliasing of transparent textures works fine on RADEON X1000, however, the actual image quality improvement is not that significant, just like in case of alpha-textures multi-sampling by NVIDIA GeForce 7 (TMS, transparent multi-sampling). I have to stress that the Adaptive FSAA of the new RADEON X1000 is of much better quality than the similar mode by GeForce 7800 GTX, however it is still much lower than what the competitor?s TSS (transparent textures super-sampling) would provide.
I would also like to say that adaptive anti-aliasing of alpha textures by RADEON C1800 XT may sometimes lead to their complete removal. In fact, it could be a drive issue, because the anti-aliasing masks can be set on the software level for ATI RADEON solutions.
So, the laurels for the best FSAA quality wills till remain with NVIDIA for now.[/quote]
Hothardware:
[/quote]AA:
If you direct your attention to the water-tower and crane in the background of these images, the impact anti-aliasing has on image quality is readily apparent. In the "No AA" shots it seemed to us that the Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition and Radeon X1800 XT had the lowest detail, and had the most prominent "jaggies." Look closely at the ladder on the water tower and you'll notice parts missing in the Radeon shots that are there on the GeForce 7800 GTX. With standard multi-sample 4X anti-aliasing enabled, though, it becomes much harder to discern any differences between the cards. The ladder in the background gets cleaned considerably, as do the cables on the crane. The same holds true when ATI's 6X MSAA and NVIDIA's 8xS AA is enabled, although in this comparison, we'd give an edge in image quality to NVIDIA, because the additional super-sampling applied by 8xS AA does a decent job of cleaning up edges of transparent textures.
However, at the very bottom of the page, we've got some screen shots using the Radeon X1000 family's new adaptive anti-aliasing algorithm. Adaptive AA is basically a combination of multi-sampling and super-sampling AA, similar to NVIDIA's 8xS mode, or a combination of NVIDIA's MSAA and the GeForce 7's transparency AA. ATI's adaptive AA mode super-samples any textures that have transparency to reduced jaggies that don't land on the edge of a polygon. There are multiple Adaptive AA modes available with the new X1000 family of cards. When in quality mode, for example, 4X Adaptive AA is a combination of 4X MSAA and 4X SSAA; 6X Adaptive AA is 6X MSAA and 6X SSAA. In performance mode though, the number of samples applied in the super-sample stage are halved (performance mode was not available in the drivers we used for testing). As you can see, ATI's adaptive AA does a great job of reducing jaggies in the scene. Open up a standard 4X or 6X AA shot, and compare the trees and grass in the scene to either of the adaptive AA screens. You'll see a significant reduction in the prominence of jaggies. Overall, we were impressed with the images produced by ATI's Adaptive AA. The X1800 XT produced some of the best images we have seen on the PC to date.
AF:
The same seemed to be true when inspecting the 16x aniso images. Of course, image quality analysis is objective by its nature, but based on these images, we think the GeForce 7800 GTX has the best image quality as it relates to anisotropic filtering when standard "optimized" aniso is used. The new Radeon X1000 family of graphics cards offer another "high quality" anisotropic mode, that doesn't have the same angular dependency as ATI's previous generation of cards. The new high-quality aniso mode offered by the X1000, applies nearly the same level of filtered regardless of the angle. Overall, the effect of enabling ATI's high-quality aniso mode is positive, as it does an even better job of sharpening texture and increasing the detail level. The fully appreciate ATI's high-quality aniso mode though, you've got to see it in action. Still screen shots don't convey the full effect.The same seemed to be true when inspecting the 16x aniso images. Of course, image quality analysis is objective by its nature, but based on these images, we think the GeForce 7800 GTX has the best image quality as it relates to anisotropic filtering when standard "optimized" aniso is used. The new Radeon X1000 family of graphics cards offer another "high quality" anisotropic mode, that doesn't have the same angular dependency as ATI's previous generation of cards. The new high-quality aniso mode offered by the X1000, applies nearly the same level of filtered regardless of the angle. Overall, the effect of enabling ATI's high-quality aniso mode is positive, as it does an even better job of sharpening texture and increasing the detail level. The fully appreciate ATI's high-quality aniso mode though, you've got to see it in action. Still screen shots don't convey the full effect.[/quote]
These some of the sites discussing IQ, while MOST e.g hexus, driverheaven dont really go into looking at IQ.
Your misinformed. And the fact TAA looks better than AAA is another fact you should know about.
Regardless of who is right, Keys' advice is good advice. Overclocking on virgin products is usually not that spectacular.
<-----interpreted the info like Keys so it's hands off for me for awhile or till proven differently
BTW: has anyone come across overclocking results yet?
<-----interpreted the info like Keys so it's hands off for me for awhile or till proven differently
BTW: has anyone come across overclocking results yet?
They did that with the early R9800Pro boards, I know, I have one. Card won't make 10MHZ over stock on the core.
Just because you got unlucky with a bad one doesn't mean that they intentionally produced cards like that on a large scale. Or do you have some evidence that they did?
Anyway the notion first proposed here was that there were chips that did not pass at 490MHz, yet they're gonna take these, slap them on a board and clock them at 500MHz. You wouldn't just be talking about cards with no overclocking potential, you'd be talking about many cards that wouldn't even be stable at their stock speed. You'd be talking about a support nightmare for ATI.
Ok let me rephrase. They just passed at 490. The original poster said this: "could only clock around 490MHz"
That would imply that they tested them higher and they failed. My point is still valid.
When you give your own interpretation of the article and agree with the article, then you open up yourself to scrutiny along with the article.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
You mean like this?:
"The XL comes with a core speed of 500 MHz. So how are they gonna get that out of cores that could only do around 490, as you're saying? This makes no sense. I think the Inquirer is giving out some bad info here."
"You're saying that they would send out a whole slew of cards that are precariously clocked to the very brink of what they are capable of. If they did that, many of these cards would almost surely have stability problems. I find it hard to believe that any company would do something like this."
"I'd think the story is more like Beyond3D says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some may question why the X1800 XL's are being introduced immediately, but the XT's coming a month later. Silicon for all the parts are in production, but the final configuration of the silicon and metal layers was resolved fairly late, and with the production times taking up to three months for chip orders to final products the XT's are coming a little later, once those chips appear. ATI can make XL's available fairly shortly because they had placed large silicon orders earlier, but stopped the production once they realised there were still issues, meaning there were many cut wafers but without metal layers ? as the issues could be resolved with a change to the contacts and metal layers ATI could utilise the silicon that had already been cut and apply new metal layers and all of these are going towards the initial XL products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they found the problem before the defective metal layers were put on the silicon."
"Well I'm just suggesting that maybe you should take what the Inquirer says with a grain of salt. Especially when what they say seems to defy reasonable logic. They may have gotten some things right lately, but we all know their track record for accuracy is sketchy."
"Maybe I should ask a mod to lock this. What you're doing is trying to scare people away from buying a good product based on an unsubstantiated rumor. Smells like FUD to me."
"You're misreading the Beyond3D quote I posted. In fact I am betting the Inquirer misread their article as well, and that's how they invented this little news item of theirs. If you read the B3D quote carefully, what they are saying is that only wafers that had not had the metal layers applied yet were used. These wafers received new metal layers which did not have the defect in question. In fact I might just go over to B3D and ask Dave to clarify this just so folks like you won't go around spreading nasty rumors & misinformation."
"Just because you got unlucky with a bad one doesn't mean that they intentionally produced cards like that on a large scale. Or do you have some evidence that they did?
Anyway the notion first proposed here was that there were chips that did not pass at 490MHz, yet they're gonna take these, slap them on a board and clock them at 500MHz. You wouldn't just be talking about cards with no overclocking potential, you'd be talking about many cards that wouldn't even be stable at their stock speed. You'd be talking about a support nightmare for ATI."
"Ok let me rephrase. They just passed at 490. The original poster said this: "could only clock around 490MHz"
That would imply that they tested them higher and they failed. My point is still valid."
-------------------
The only thing that is obvious here is that I along with some others agree that this is worth looking into especially for overclockers. You on the other hand seem to care nothing about your fellow Anandtech members by letting your agenda get in the way and would willingly and knowingly steer them in the wrong direction for the sake of your favorite company.
You posted a link that actually added merit to this possible issue and called it just the opposite with faulty logic.
"So they found the problem before the defective metal layers were put on the silicon."
What defective metal layers? The new metal layers are supposedly what was used to repair a problem on older wafers that are to be used for the initial shipments of XL's.
I don't know what harm it could do to look into this do you morph? Can you tell me why you are so against this idea? Besides the fact that you think I am trying to prevent ATI sales which is utter BS? You are alone here as you can see. So I suggest you stay out of this particular thread unless you have any useful contributory information. Else a mod may or may not take a shine to you.
You know, I could go through what you said and tell you how you're wrong in every regard, but I've lost interest. I really don't care anymore. When people get the XL cards and start testing them, then we'll see if they are faulty chips that are clocked to their brink as you suggest.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
No, you cant. You will never lose interest. You care entirely too much but in the wrong way. Yes we will see but hopefully in the hands of reviewers and not some member here only to find out that he spent his money poorly and should have waited. But you don't want that to happen for some really bizaar reasons.
Anyway, forget you. Back on to the topic.
Has anyone seen o/c benches for the XL yet? If so, please post any and all links you find.
Go back through the archives around the launch of the R9800Pro- it was far from out of the ordinary(majority of parts were horrible OCers at best). After the newer revision parts started circulating things improved significantly, but the early parts were without a doubt pushing the upper limits of the core.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter